Delete Audience

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral details: cascading deletion of subscribers and that newsletters retain their history. This provides a clearer operational expectation than annotations alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of two concise sentences, front-loading the action and then detailing consequences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the availability of an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, destructive behavior, and side effects. It is complete for the tool's complexity and provides sufficient guidance for safe invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters (id and idempotency_key) are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add extra meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('newsletter audience'), and adds critical context about cascading deletion of subscribers and preservation of newsletters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_audience or update_audience.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly warns about the destructive nature and cascading effect on subscribers, guiding the agent to use caution. However, it does not mention alternative tools (e.g., remove_subscriber) for when deletion is not intended.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.